RAPOLU SUDHAKAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions, challenge is to the Government Order being G.O.Rt.No. 57 Revenue (Endowments. II/1) Department dated 8.1.2007, whereunder respondents 4 to 12 herein were appointed as members of Board of Trustees to the third respondent Temple for a period of two years with effect from the date of taking oath of office and secrecy. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned G.O. as illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) and A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (hereafter called, the Rules).

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.No. 1020 of 2007 is a devotee of Sri Anjaneya Swami who statedly participates in early celebrations held in Sri Hanuman Devastanam, Karmanghat. The said Temple is registered as religious institution classified under Section 6(a) of the Act. The first respondent, who is the competent authority under Section 15 (1)(a) of the Act, to appoint Board of Trustees for the third respondent Temple, issued a notification in Memo No. 16986/Endts.II(1)/ 2005-1, dated 3.5.2005. The Commissioner of Endowments, second respondent herein, in obedience thereto issued a notice dated 17.5.2005 inviting interested persons to send their applications for trusteeship within twenty days from the date of issue of the said notice. Though the petitioner in W.P. No. 1020 of 2007 did not apply, the petitioner in W.P. No.1337 of 2007 is one of the applicants. After conducting necessary enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules, the first respondent issued the impugned G.O. In these writ petitions, it is mainly contended that the notice as required under the Rules was not issued by the competent authority, that the same was not published in the daily newspapers, that the first respondent appointed trustees ignoring the claims of local residents and that there was long delay in appointing respondents 4 to 12 after issue of notice on 17.5.2005.

(3.) In both the writ petitions, the Assistant Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh in Revenue Department filed counter-affidavit. In brief, it is the case of the first respondent that after expiry of the term of Board of Trustees, the Government issued notification under Section 15 (1) of the Act on 3.5.2005 instructing the second respondent for issue of notice in Form-I as prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules, calling for applications within twenty days from the date of the said notice. The second respondent published notice on 17.5.2005 and the same was affixed at the notice board of the third respondent Temple as well as at the notice board of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Ranga Reddy District. The Executive Officer of the Temple sent a report on 25.5.2005 to the effect that the notice has been published. The second respondent received the applications and forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ranga Reddy District, for verification of antecedents. He submits a report to the second respondent stating that as per the enquiry conducted by the Inspector of Endowments, none of the applicants suffered disqualification under Section 19 of the Act except Sri J. Surender Reddy, who was facing allegations of illegal closure of well in the Temple land and creating Samadhi of his father, and Sri Mettu Venkata Reddy, who has not completed the age of 30 years. After considering these applications, the Government issued the impugned G.O. appointing respondents 4 to 12 as trustees.